Most people don't want to hear this stuff, and the ones who do still don't know what to do after they hear it.

The apathy really has grown out of control to the point that the ones who do care that such a thing is happening question themselves whether they
*should* care at all because most others aren't. For example, say anyone who cares might want to spread the word this news is dangerous and warrants
attention. That person might be tempted to share this news with someone else who is, by their nature, surely not to have heard about it. I myself can
imagine being given a "Umm what?" or "OK so what [do you want me to say]...?"

The fact that 9/11 happened as it did and there are blatant lies being told goes to show that people reached the highest point of apathy about 10
years ago. Reveal the blatant lies to them, and they don't care. If they don't care about 9/11, they won't care about this or any other 'tame'
news item. Only until it hits too close to home will a very very small percentage of people start asking questions.

I'm tempted to reach that point myself. It's like we are surrounded by a bunch of drugged patients who are zoned out of reality. I feel that most
people in this country who are too much in a fog to see what's happening deserve what's coming to them. La-la land has a price. If it takes things
getting too ugly a little too late, that's what it takes. Let it happen.

Take away the newspapers, televisions, movies and music, and maybe we would stand a chance against these abuses. But THAT will never happen.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have many times over tried to start a conversation with people about real current event. Eyes glaze over, and not too
long after someone would pipe up about the yankees or knicks to change the subject and drown you out. Sad, NYers seemed to care about useless sports
teams, rather than 9/11 quite probably was done by people on our inside..... There were some exceptions, but that is how it went the majority of the
time.

this is really scary,to be found innocent,but because of obamas degenerate inclinations, he can get the pleasure of locking people up for life,i
really can't grasp how he gets off on this,but his waste paper basket must be over flowing with tissues by now.

Originally posted by pauldamo
this is really scary,to be found innocent,but because of obamas degenerate inclinations, he can get the pleasure of locking people up for life,i
really can't grasp how he gets off on this,but his waste paper basket must be over flowing with tissues by now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if he does lock someone up, he only has a maximum of 8 years in office?

To be clearer, this isn't just about president Obama, it gives the "executive branch" of government unprecedented arbitrary and discretionary powers
to indefinitely detain individuals based on any national security threats.. Real or fabricated, despite any claims of innocence, or affirming ruling
of innocence.

These cases will be determined on an individual basis, reviewed by a number of government officials (periodically) in the military, the intelligence
community, and the executive branch acting on these recommendations the president can order the continued and indefinite detainment of ANYONE... No
matter who that president is.

To be clearer, this isn't just about president Obama, it gives the "executive branch" of government unprecedented arbitrary and discretionary
powers to indefinitely detain individuals based on any national security threats.. Real or fabricated, despite any claims of innocence, or affirming
ruling of innocence.

These cases will be determined on an individual basis, reviewed by a number of government officials (periodically) in the military, the intelligence
community, and the executive branch acting on these recommendations the president can order the continued and indefinite detainment of ANYONE... No
matter who that president is.

What could be accomplished? The ramping up of the police state, and an accelerated erosion of the freedoms we do have left. That is all that will
accomplish IMO, and I think it is why that is being pushed. Win/win situation for them. Either we keep our mouths shut, and take it up the.... well
you get the point, or we do something about it and things probably even get worse.

Makes me a bit paranoid myself lol. He talks common sense, and knows the law. He doesn't fit in there at all. My hope is he has some dirt on the FOX
owner or something, and that is why he still has his show after day 1

Trying to talk to people about this is like talking to your cat. They could care less, do not understand what you are saying, and only want to
continue the status quo. Keep insisting and you will get scratched.

Originally posted by SFGirl
They are covered by the Geneva Convention and by the very fact that they are not UNIFORMED Combatants they have none of the protections of the Geneva
Convention.

This is simply not true and, if you truly are a “retired veteran,” it’s even more worrying how ignorant you are of the
Conventions, which are at the core of the laws of war.

If a detained person qualifies as a POW he is protected under the Third Geneva Convention, but if he does not qualify as a POW he is covered by the
Fourth Geneva Convention, and is afforded the minimum protections of the Conventions, as specified in Common Article 3.

Originally posted by SFGirl
because it is perfectly legal under the Geneva Convention to execute them on sight.

This is completely untrue and easily demonstrable as
such.

Common Article 3 states that “... the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court
affording all judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” “are and shall remain prohibited at any
time and in any place whatsoever” in respect to “persons taking no active part in the hostilities,” like “those placed hors de combat
by ... detention, or any other cause”.

I await your citations of the Geneva Conventions that allow “executions on sight” as you claim they do.

Originally posted by OldCorp
Another thing that makes them UNLAWFUL enemy combatants is the fact that most of them aren't even from Afghanistan.

Nonsense. Being a national
is not a requirement for being a privileged combatant. Foreign volunteers are permissible under the laws of war.

You two make these absolute statements, and while you might fool some uninformed people by hiding your extreme views behind vague references to the
Conventions, it’s quite obvious you have little or no knowledge of the laws of armed conflict.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Am I the only one that has the feeling that the puppetmasters are trying their damndest to make obama become a martyr?

A puppet is a puppet by choice.

He chose to be controlled, everyone in 'the game' knows how it works. If they accept that control as a part and parcel of gaining a prestigious office
and a semblance of power, they are guilty of treason before they finish their first day in the chair.

Why don't we ever vote someone proper, honest and courageous to office? It's always these bloody wide boys and crooks...are we *so* impressed by a
sharp suit and glowing white teeth that we simply ignore the obvious clues that they are as corrupt as the day is long?

It's such a shame JFK was murdered by these enemies of freedom, our world would be a completely different place by now if he'd survived i feel.

Where are all the JFK 2.0's?

I realise JFK was a 'one in a million' kind of bloke, but a country of over 300 million, must have at least a handful of JFK 2.0's foaming at the bit
for their chance to put right all the wrongs of the last 3 or 4 decades?

If all we've got to look forward to is a steady succession of corporate controlled puppets, what's the point of continuing the charade and not
drastically changing the system?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it doesn't apply here..it is broken and it desperately needs fixing before the wheels fall off completely.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.